It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Impossible Size of Dinosaurs

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I think its a mix of both.

The "expanding earth" is a byproduct of electric cosmology.

Placed under stress, the earth expands.

The earth was imparted with a magnetic field at its creation, which was by electrical ejection from a gas giant planet.

All solid body planets are born of large gas giants, gas giants are born of stars.

The magnetic field imparted to each planet is dependent upon the conditions of its birth.

The earth is under electrical stress from the sun's electric field impinging on its magnetic field causing the sub surface heating of rock due to friction. The expansion of earth is a byproduct of this electrical stress between the earth and the sun.

Earthquakes are also an electrical byproduct of this stress, amounting to large discharges of static energy, underground lightning if you will.

The earth is not hollow, however its density drastically changes. As the earth expands, its density decreases proportionately. Kind of like a cloud of gas expanding to fill a void.

When the earth was born it was smaller due to the fact it was compacted tightly by the atmosphere of the gas giant it was born from (most likely Saturn). It has become less compact with age. Its gravity has changed due to its orbital placement changing, thus effecting its electrical environment, thus changing its gravity.




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The way i see it.
They got beig because they had to. The animal arms race.
and evolution gave them the bone support and whatever else they needed to overcome the problems.

dinosaurs.about.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No, planets are caused from dust gravitating together, eventually clearing a path around it through being so massive. Rocky planets, gas giants, and even suns form that way. The Earth has a magnetic field because it has a large amount of molten ferric metal in its core. Not all planets have that, and definitely not of the same magnitude.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
Byrd here is a question for you, at any given time what % of the estimated number of species does the fossil record represent? I should think it pretty small, with only those animals living in enviroments condusive to fossilization being preserverd.


Scientists have no idea... it couldn't have been "unlimited" but we are continually finding new species (for dinos, it's at the rate of several new ones per year.)


I've often thought that if Humans went extinct that the odds would be against any of us being preserved in the fossil record. So in theory if this happened and a few million years went by there would be no sign of us at all, which makes me wonder if Earth has spawned other sentients and their record is now forever gone...


No, the odds would be 100% of our being preserved in the fossil record.

Fossils include not only bones, but "trace fossils" such as footprints, tunnels of shore creatures that burrowed into the mud (although their bodies are only very very rarely found), cavities where tree roots once were but eroded out... and so on and so forth. Humans have left significant permanent marks on the planet -- from the surface to the ocean below to ice caps and all -- and it will only be when the sun turns into a red giant and swallows all the inner planets that all trace of us on earth will vanish.

But not traces elsewhere. Like the Mars Rovers.

All lifeforms are sentient. If you mean, "tool using advanced civilizations" the answer is "zero." Creatures don't suddenly wake up one morning and think "I think I'll quickly evolve to create mecha-droids and starships" and have them done within a month or two. It takes a long time (and a lot of mess and a lot of traces) for civilizations of any sort (no matter if it's clams with finger or not) to get to that point. So although an incredibly advanced civilization might vanish, there's no way they could go back through every square inch of the Earth and other planets and remove everything (from roadways to cellars to garbage pits and so forth.)



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I had heard a theory that T Rex was a scavenger but it seems to me like that doesn't rule out also being a predator, food is food, right?



Actually I wouldn't go so far as to say there's NO truth to the oxygen theory, there is some truth to it, but from what I know about biology and oxygen transport, the creature size limits due to atmospheric oxygen content applies to arthropods, creatures without circulatory systems. As far as I know an animal with a circulatory system could by evolving an efficient enough circulatory system overcome some of the size limitations that arthropods have based on oxygen content.


It's more than circulatory efficiency -- it's also weight and physics. And although we have spectacularly large insects from that time, the ones preserved in fossilized amber are quite small. Had oxygen been the factor, they'd all be big.


Scientists have long suspected that atmospheric oxygen played a central role in both the rise and fall of these organisms. Recent research on the ancient climate by Dr. Robert A. Berner, a Yale geologist, and others reinforces the idea of a rise in oxygen concentration - to about 35 percent, compared with 21 percent now - during the Carboniferous.


Yeah, but was he a paleontologist?


Semi-serious question. Our sciences are SO complex that it's difficult for a specialist in one area (paleontology) to know all about related areas (archaeology, geology) that you might suspect they'd know quite a bit about... although paleontologists have to know the geology of the area they're studying, but they might not be knowledgeable about other details and other geologic topics in great depth.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
One observation no one has mention yet is that spices tend to grow and shrink based on the area size and food available. We have seen the shrinkage side of this when large animals get trapped on island and over a period of time they shrink to match their environment.

If back when dinosaurs roamed the earth the abundance of food and the size of their environment was huge then the size of creatures would continue to grow and grow to match what is around them.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I personally think it was because of atmospheric conditions. I read a couple of years ago that thats the main line thinking of most scientist, and the unlimited vegatation on earth, not to mention other animals for the meat eaters such as the t-rex. The atmospheric conditions allowed for them to grow and grow, and the endless supply of food just made it that much more possible.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
I personally think it was because of atmospheric conditions. I read a couple of years ago that thats the main line thinking of most scientist, and the unlimited vegatation on earth, not to mention other animals for the meat eaters such as the t-rex. The atmospheric conditions allowed for them to grow and grow, and the endless supply of food just made it that much more possible.


And we are talking 100s of millions of years here.... I wonder what we and other creatures will be like in 100 million years...

The size of my last girl friend put her a good 25 million years ahead of us...



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
hi ATS, like they say in radio "long time listener 1st time caller"... dr. kent hovind (i know i know...) theorized that the earth was enveloped by an ice canopy which had the effect of creating the mother of all hyperbaric chambers... our modern hyperbaric chambers are used by divers, football teams and the late michael jackson for its miraculous regenerative properties...
so in this highly oxygenated and pressurized atmosphere maximum physical potential was achieved...also the ice canopy had a dual role in filtering out much of the harmful uv radiation.
i have seen an experiment with fish where uv was filtered out and the water was charged with an electrical current that enabled the fish to grow 40% larger than the control group...damned if i cant find it anywhere now!
but the filtering of uv might explain deep sea gigantism.
now i know there will be a posse comin ta lynch me for quoting kent hovind...but its a fantastic theory and worth bringing up if only for its entertainment value. btw mr hovind is doing 10yrs for arguing with the IRS



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Longtimegone
reply to post by MysterE
 


Too bad gravity is based on mass and not on size. Wow, some of the things on this site amaze me.


That's not true either. We are not 100% on the mass idea.
Gravity seems to also be varied by atomic density.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
www.sciencedaily.com...

As you'll see, the mummified dinosaur had more muscle than scientist had predicted. From the article:

-="Most importantly, it was the first-ever find of a dinosaur where the skin "envelope" had not collapsed onto the skeleton. This has allowed scientists to calculate muscle volume and mass for the first time."=-

Less objection can result as the original objection came from faulty findings of nonexistent evidence to suggest that dinosaurs had less muscle mass.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by herbivore
reply to post by Byrd
 


and how EXACTLY do the "rocks" prove that the Earth is not expanding? Is it because there are hundreds of books written by mediocre "scientists" who are happy their books are published and who BLINDLY trust the "official" sources?

Most of the "educated" people are simply brainwashed. Getting a degree is often associated with BLINDLY accepting the tutorials offered by universities as the final TRUTH.

There are so many serious arguments in favour of Expanding Earth theory, it is really not simple to find any arguments against it. Just saying that "rocks say so" is insulting and stupid.


No, it's just that I didn't want to go into a long discussion about the layers of rocks, the uplifts, the subductions and so forth. Most of the "lack of arguments against it" is simply because it's so unbelievable that nobody has bothered to counter it in this century. All the counterarguments were made in the past 2-3 centuries.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
[Actually I wouldn't go so far as to say there's NO truth to the oxygen theory, there is some truth to it, but from what I know about biology and oxygen transport, the creature size limits due to atmospheric oxygen content applies to arthropods, creatures without circulatory systems. As far as I know an animal with a circulatory system could by evolving an efficient enough circulatory system overcome some of the size limitations that arthropods have based on oxygen content.


Okay... so I asked the paleontologists about this one because in spite of my initial "no", I don't know everything in the universe about the subject and when in doubt go talk to people who have studied the situation.


Here's the scoop:
There is SOME support for higher oxygen content during the age of the giant insects. BUT... it can't be too much higher than it is today (otherwise the first lightning strike would burn away the atmosphere). By the time of the dinosaurs it was generally similar to the oxygen content of today.

The really huge dinos weren't during the age of T-Rex (Cretaceous) but during a previous era (100 million years earlier), the Jurassic (before T-Rex's time, in spite of "Jurassic Park.") I believe that I've read that even the largest of them were not much larger than today's whales -- and if you pause to think, whales don't have the advantage of hyperbaric oxygen. During the rise of the mammals (after the Cretaceous ended), there were some gigantic mammals wandering around that were the size of some of the larger dinosaurs. So there's another reason for the size -- food and oxygen both aren't sufficient to account for it.

Hyperbaric oxygen certainly didn't make Michael Jackson grow taller (and he slept in a hyperbaric chamber for years and years.)

Truth is, nobody knows for certain. It will take more studies (many more) to determine what's going on, and the answer may not be a simple "give them more vitamins" sort of thing. Living things are highly complex, and it's seldom just one factor.

...and that's the answer I got.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
It might be much more simple than we're making it. We know that animals on islands don't grow very large because of the lack of resources. That's why we get those pygmy elephants and the like. If food was abundant, then what's to stop animals from growing to massive sizes? Just like blue whales, with their abundance of krill, if there's a crapload of plants, then herbivorous dinos would probably just keep growing until there was no more food to support their growth.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SorensDespair
If food was abundant, then what's to stop animals from growing to massive sizes?
I think it depends on the species of animal and its genetic programming. Humans for example if eating overabundantly may grow taller to a point but there is a limit to that and at some point extra food just makes us grow wider. But some animals and plants may keep growing their entire lives if they don't have a genetic limit to size like Humans appear to.

Animal growth


In most organisms, growth ceases at maturity, but in some, growth continues throughout life. Complete cessation of growth when the adult stage has been reached occurs mainly in terrestrial animals.


So in the case of land animals, some genetic changes might be needed in addition to an abundant food supply to overcome the genetic size limit. I believe the pygmy effect when food resources are scarce requires no such genetic modification, the small size could be the result of malnourishment or other factors.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Malnutrition applies to individual cases. Evolutionarily, animals will evolve to be smaller in environments with less food. This isn't because of malnutrition, but rather the increased likelihood of survival with smaller bodies.

You can feed a pygmy elephant all that you wanted for all of its life and it would never grow to the size of an African elephant.


[edit on 15-12-2009 by SorensDespair]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Thanks for the information


Though I am not 100% convinced that if 65 million years were to pass after our extinction anything would be left to say "These animals had a civilization".

Anyway I've been watching some new Dino programming on the Discovery channel. Fun stuff, I'd never heard before the notion of Hadrosaurs using low frequency sound as a weapon. Still skeptical on that but it does sound cool.

Additionally there was lots of refernces to the bone structures that allowed for the great size, while I knew that already it is cool to see cgi anatomical models.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I was watching something on the Discovery channel and they were going over how much the dinosaurs had to eat and all that. When it came to like Brontosaurus and all, I just could not help but wonder when they had the time to eat as much as they apparently had to. Not that I doubt they existed, it just made me wonder.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


I personally don't know how they got to be that size, and really any explanation at this point is possible until one is proven to be true.

Unfortunately, this thread is being invaded by the almighty ATS Ignorant Squad. (ATSIS)

I don't know if the expanding earth theory is valid, I've only recently looked into it and am still researching it, but the implications of the electric universe theory does imply a possibility to an expanding earth being valid. At least I understand enough of it right now to not sound like a nitwit with these favorite quotes here:

@Longtimegone

Too bad gravity is based on mass and not on size. Wow, some of the things on this site amaze me.


A smaller Earth with less mass would invariably have less gravity allowing for the enormous size of these giants. Your statement on mass is not violated at all.

@SteveR

The Earth is not magically bigger today than it was millions of years ago. As others have correctly stated, the size of the dinosaurs is down to a different atmospheric composition. More oxygen providing for much greater muscular potential.


No one is claiming any magic is involved here, just simple elegant physics. According the the Electric Universe Theory, stars and planets are formed by a z-pinch effect. We can observe analogous systems in plasma fields in lab studies. Now, if the EUT model of the universe is correct, an expanding Earth would be quiet possible, at least it seems so from what I've read so far on it. As the core of the Earth is a dense plasma rather than molten iron, as this plasma cools it expands. I won't go into all the details, but at first I initially considered it pure BS, but after taking a closer look, it seems plausible. I'm not saying that it's true, but magic it is not.

@vip867

Exactly, think of neutron stars, tiny yet so extremly dense that we could not stand on or land anything on them without being crushed instantly.


A smaller expanding Earth does not necessarily mean more denser Earth.

@SorensDespair

Hell, even a black hole, which is a singularity but has massive gravitation.

This site is a trip sometimes.


Does a pebble have more gravitational mass than a mountain? Please keep logical fallacies out of the discussion, especially unfounded one's.

@SorensDespair

Are you suggesting that the Earth's mass has greatly increased? Where did the extra mass come from? Expansion isn't an option, since that would imply that the same stuff was here, it's just getting bigger. So we'd need new stuff to be coming from somewhere else.... and a lot of it.


The extra mass could be accreted from space.


They might not have 100% cracked WHY the dinosaurs were so large but the bones and fossil evidence show that the dinosaurs definitely were that large.


The definite large size was never an issue raised by the OP, it's the how and why that is the issue. The argument on your behalf is unfounded and out of context.


I really don't like the expanding Earth theory because it requires new matter to be created and fundamental science tells us matter doesn't just spring from thin air, especially not complex matter like thousands of square miles of minerals gold oil and dirt that the crust of Earth is made from.


Accretion is not creation.


I like the Electric Universe Theory, not sure how they would effect the whole dinosaur thing though (random image of a Dinosaur Ben Franklin flying a kite with a key popped into my head).


If you like the Electric Universe Theory then you should equally enjoy the Expanding Earth Theory as it is all based on plasma's. EUT physics allows for an Earth with an expanding plasma core, it demands a plasma core.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I only wen through this first page, but like I said OP... I can't say for sure if this viewpoint is true or not, but I can appreciate the sophistication of the idea. It's only a shame that some people attack it without understanding or open mindedness. Traits like those are what I hate most about ATS members. It's their way or the highway, and if you don't agree with them then your an ignorant troll who "just doesn't get it."



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by LuckyStrike
I've often wondered if the dinosaurs were ever able to reach some form of civilization or technology during their time here on earth. I know there were some species of dinos that were more intelligent than others. Maybe they were able to get off this world at some point in their existence. This could possibly be where the whole reptilian/alien theory originated from.


You also need the physical ability. We have thumbs with the dexterity to build.


IMHO

Given enough time and the right circumstances there would have been some sort of evolutionary development towards that.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join